Check Course Setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns findings grouped by check, provides plain-language detail per item, only inspects configuration state, and requires instructor permissions. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose and output are front-loaded, exclusions and prerequisites are grouped afterward. Each sentence contributes distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (grouped findings with plain-language details), the optional checks behavior via the schema, the permission requirement, and the boundary versus alternative tools. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining what the five check types correspond to in real configuration problems (e.g., missing due dates, unpublished items, gradebook weighting gaps), making the checks parameter more meaningful than the enum names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run a factual course-readiness report') and enumerates the exact configuration problems it detects. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it does not inspect submissions or performance and names the alternatives, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the tool's scope ('config-health report only') and gives concrete exclusion guidance: 'does not inspect student submissions or performance (see list_students_needing_attention / get_missing_submissions for those)'. It also adds the prerequisite that instructor permissions are required, giving clear when-to-use context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.